Computer forensics firm Stroz Friedberg, which conducted the audit, found that the snooping software called gslite only collected data from unencrypted networks while intentionally disregarding encrypted networks. : "While running in memory, gslite permanently drops the bodies of all data traffic transmitted over encrypted wireless networks. The gslite program does write to a hard drive the bodies of wireless data packets from unencrypted networks."

Not only does PI believe that there is ample evidence of criminal intent, it also feels that a “systematic failure of management and of duty of care” and not the code's alleged author is to be blamed. “This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,” PI said in a statement.

On the other hand, Google again tried to downplay the entire matter: "As we have said before, this was a mistake. The report today confirms that Google did indeed collect and store payload data from unencrypted wi-fi networks, but not from networks that were encrypted. We are continuing to work with the relevant authorities to respond to their questions and concerns.”

I've come to 2 conclusions that Europe is worse than the riaa and that europe is mad that the us has the most successful internet companies. So they sue microsoft apple google etc. To try to bring them down. so you know what fuck europe google should publish everything they found any information on an unsecured network is free for anyone to look at. 600 gb should keep 4chan busy for weeks.

hello? These networks were NOT encrypted. Anyone useing them should ASSUME that the data can and will be intercepted. The way I see it, if a network is not encrypted, you use at your own risk. I'm sure most of the networks caught were public access wifi places, in which case the keyword is PUBLIC. As for home users not running a encrypted network, well they should know better....

You can not intentionally harvest information on such a large scale. Although the users are to blame in part, but Google was expected to act in good faith. Intention and good faith need to be understood in their legal sense